By Julie BUTCHER

“It is outrageous to me that the fact that 76% of the respondents [who] oppose this project was not included in the staff report,” Councilmember Ara Najarian criticized city staff early in Tuesday night’s meeting of the Glendale City Council. His comment was in regard to the demonstration project the city has been conducting reconfiguring the street design of North Brand Boulevard to test bike lanes and other changes. By the end of a long night, the Council eventually voted 4 to 1 to entirely scrap the “complete streets” experiment and return the street to its previous configuration, at an additional cost of $527,696. Councilmember Dan Brotman voted against ending the project.

“It’s been a long road,” said city manager Roubik Golanian who detailed the path the project has taken since the city answered the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) call for projects in 2018 and applied for a $500,000 grant to try out various active transportation schemes. In June 2022, Glendale’s Transportation and Parking Commission approved the design of the demonstration project on North Brand Boulevard after it had been vetted through both technical and community advisory committees. The Council approved the design in August 2022, adopted plans and specifications in June 2023 and awarded a contract for $842,000 in December 2023 to make the changes, which were completed in May 2024 – the city’s first complete streets initiative.

City engineers Armen Avazian and traffic engineer Pastor Casanova summarized input the city has received since May: 1,773 surveys plus 1,246 supplemental written comments, with 73% of the respondents living in or near the project corridor. Of those responding, 12.7% considered the project in a positive light while 76% deemed it negative with most citing issues of vehicular visibility, increased traffic congestion, reduced traffic efficiency and reduced bicycle use. 

Staff laid out three options going forward. Option 1 would extend the test period while adding parking and a buffer, reducing the width of the bike lanes, adding a commercial loading zone for each block, adding a southbound travel lane in front of Incarnation Church (1001 N. Brand Blvd.) and adding additional street striping improvements. This option would cost $235,120.

Option 2 would add a two-way bicycle track on the east side of the street, restore two southbound travel lanes, add striping improvements and commercial loading zones and would increase the width of parking stalls, at a cost of $534,400.

For both Options 1 and 2, city staff recommend reviewing the status of the street after six months.

Option 3 would revert the street to its original alignment and would cost $527,696.

Forty-one cards were submitted to speak at the Council meeting and 14 callers signed up to speak to the body by phone.

“I’m here tonight to urge you to vote for Option 3 to fully remove the bike lanes and associated changes to restore Brand Boulevard to its original condition. This demonstration project has already proven to be a major failure. Approving either of the two other options risks wasting another $535,000 combined with the $1.4 million already spent,” Susan Broussalian began the public commenting.

“Maya” spoke in support of Option 1: “Let’s be frank: Glendale is terrifying for anyone not in a car.”

“Armen,” another caller, has lived in Glendale for 40 years and has seen projects that make some sense and some that make less sense, he told the Council. When he saw the project on North Brand, he considered it a “monstrosity” and asked, “What the hell?” He compared the project to Beirut, Lebanon “during the war” and questioned “the illogicalness of it.” The project has reduced bicycle usage and first responders have raised concerns about increased response time, he added.

Rossmoyne HOA president Lorna Vartanian spoke on behalf of the 1,300 families in the homeowner’s association.

“Simply put and according to the data, this project is a failure in this location,” she said. “It has put extra stress on our neighborhood and those who visit Brand Boulevard.” 

Tom Brown described himself as a 75-year-old senior. 

“I don’t have a car. I bike 30 blocks a day to the Pacific community pool using bike lanes where they’re available, side streets where they’re not. I know I’m in the minority here but something needs to be done to make North Brand less car-centric, less of a seven-lane wasteland, something on a more human scales, more friendly to pedestrians, cyclists and cars.”

Lee Straus reported that he has collected 2,233 signatures on a petition calling on the demonstration project to be ended immediately.

Tony Sardo Jr. also advocated Option 3.

“We love our town,” he said. “Nobody’s against bike lanes; you just have to put them in the right places.”

“Cara” noted that as a demonstration project, the goal of the trial was accomplished. She pushed for Option 1: “Staff has incorporated public feedback; it costs less than other options; and it doesn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

Randy Stevenson has a business at 1111 N. Brand Blvd. 

“The results are in – the staff report unequivocally shows that the project had overwhelmingly negative effects on the neighborhood,” Stevenson said. “Those results are underreported. The rate of accidents substantially increased – 11 collisions over the 141 days before the project and 12 during the 95 days of the project. Both the staff and consultant reports – until an hour ago – left out dramatic levels of opposition found in their own surveys.”

Councilmember Vartan Gharpetian reiterated his opposition to removing parking or travel lanes to install bike lanes and reminded the Council that he had not been part of voting for this project. He ran through the costs: $900,000 with $500,000 from SCAG, another matching $100,000 and then $800,000 for construction. Finally, Gharpetian opined that the project was meant “to get people out of their cars, to create congestion so people will get out of their cars.”

Councilmember Najarian added, “I don’t want to tell anyone I told you so, but if you check the Council meeting video from August 2022, I raised every one of these concerns. I don’t want to use the word ‘boondoggle,’ but this is one of the biggest misplaced policy directives that cost us a lot of money. I predict the same thing for La Crescenta Avenue.”

Earlier on Tuesday, city staff offered a detailed study of the way Glendale Water and Power (GWP) sets its rates. While the utility is experiencing electric rates at the high end compared to local municipal utilities such as Burbank, Pasadena and Los Angeles, GWP rates are lower than those of Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric and Pacific Gas and Electric. As a municipal utility, GWP does not make a profit and sets its rates based on the cost of providing electricity to its customers. The staff report is available at Item 1 at: https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=38415. 

At the beginning of the council meeting, a proclamation was adopted recognizing Dec. 13 as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Day.